Roper argues that Australia is facing a serious epidemic of “men’s violence against women” manifest as “rape, battering, abuse even murder.” But rather than provide evidence for such an assertion she simply links to other feminist advocacy groups (White Ribbon and UN Women) that are not independent arbiters of the current status of peer-reviewed violence research but rather the well-funded vocal mouthpieces of feminist orthodoxy.

So what is the current evidence concerning partner violence in Australia?

The most authoritative source of information it the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, with information collected in 2005 and again in 2012. Even this research is tainted by feminist ideology and gender bias in that the 2012 sample included only 22% of male respondents (a decrease from 27% in 2005). None the less it showed on both occasions that men account for at least one in three of the victims of partner violence in Australia, but more importantly that the vast majority of perpetrators of dating and partner violence against men were female – only 6 or 7 per cent of incidents involved same-sex violence.

In relation to sexual assault the 2012 Personal Safety Survey found that almost one in three victims of sexual assault during the previous 12 months were male whilst more than one in three victims of physical and/or sexual abuse before the age of 15 were male.

Since 1989 the Australian Institute of Criminology through the National Homicide Monitoring Program has collated data on homicides. Rather then epidemic rates of partner homicide, current rates are reported to be at a historic low, with at least one in three victims of intimate partner homicide being male. This of course is likely to be an underestimate as homicide by proxy usually by a man on behalf of a woman will not be recorded as a partner homicide and typical female methods of homicide such as poisoning may go undetected.

Roper uses well-worn feminist techniques of conflation and selective citation in an attempt to stimulate moral outrage. Combining statistics like one in three women will be victims of partner abuse in their lifetime with a few anecdotal examples of the very worst cases, attempt’s to paint all partner violence as this severe form (intimate terrorism) when in fact a vast majority of that “1 in 3 “ group will have only ever experienced some minor relationship conflict, which according to current definitions could be as trivial as a mean word or a threatening look.

In typical feminist rhetorical style Roper takes the opportunity to infuse her article with overt male hatred and repeated references to “naming the problem” of “men’s violence against women” and the “gendered nature of men’s violence” as if no other type of violence and certainly not any form of female violence exists.

I guess Caitlin has not checked out the statistics on: non–therapeutic termination of pregnancy, post-viability and post-birth termination of pregnancy/the fetus, infanticide, neonaticide, filicide, women’s predominant roles in child abuse, neglect, elder abuse or the extent of women’s use false allegations of abuse as a tool of abuse. It’s as if these aspects of female violence are “softened or made non-existent” by a complete refusal on the part of feminists to even acknowledge them let alone NAME them.

No feminist piece on partner violence would be complete without the ludicrous claims that this “men’s violence against women” is accepted tolerated and even condoned by society. I have yet to see a single reputable person argue violence against women is ok. But female violence against men of course IS routinely minimized and excused, after all what did he do to deserve it? This is one of the issues explored by Dr Nerdlove in this excellent article “Invisible Victims: Men in Abusive Relationships” with thanks to Judgy Bitch for sharing the link.

Roper didn’t like Blanch’s response and took the opportunity launch an ad hominem attack against him (and the very concept of men’s human rights in general) titled ‘Bash a bitch’: How Men’s Rights Activists Hate Womensub-titled A Voice for Men: harassing and abusing those who defend women.

Her lack of any real understanding of the field of partner violence is clear when she parrots other prominent feminists and the media in using repeatedly debunked factoids such as “Violence is also the biggest cause of injury or death for women between 18 and 45.” Let Tom Voltz educate you on that one, Caitlin.

Rather than responding to the very valid points in Blanch’s article Roper makes only fallacious misrepresentations of men’s human rights, its advocates and AVFM. I believe that’s called “derailing the conversation,” Caitlin.

Part of that derailing involved out of context rehashing of an old satirical article by Paul Elam just like those protesting the Detroit conference did. Of course that article continues to broaden the exposure of AVFM and as was intended attract new interest to men’s human rights; fortunately some people understand satire – thanks for that Caitlin.

She goes on to claim

“A Facebook group with links to MRA group ‘A Voice For Men’ has been formed for the purpose of harassing and abusing Collective Shout members in Townsville.”

Not to my knowledge and I reckon as the Australian News Director for AVFM and resident of Townsville I would probably know about it. Oh hang on “with links to,” covers all manner of sins, doesn’t it? Well if someone reading a website, is a “link to” then yeah, one of the group members had a link to AVFM just like I have a link to News Corp, Fairfax, Blogger, Facebook and many other media and social outlets so clearly anything I do is endorsed and ratified by those organisations.

I decided to contact the group and conversed with one of their number and whilst I don’t agree with their use of vulgarities in expressing their opinions (this tactic is best left to Clementine Ford a feminist blogger with limited vocabulary) he seems like a reasonable bloke and there is scope for developing a link with AVFM and perhaps even forming a local men’s human rights collective. This is something I will explore when I return from the Detroit conference. Thanks for making the connection for me Caitlin.

What is clear is that Roper has “links to” the virulent end of anti-male hate because she condemns the exposure of gender bigots who advocate eugenics and genderocide such as Vilet Tiptree / Pamela O’Shaughnessy. Yes, she has discovered the underbelly of hate at Radfemhub and it would appear she is fully on board with the agenda, even Betty McLellen has come out of retirement with comments to support her. Meanwhile Pamela O’Shaughnessy has released a post dated (29 July 2014) retrospective of her outing as a vicious gender extremist .

If one has any inclination to understand why Caitlin Roper has become embroiled with this band of gender lunatics you will gain insight by reading her victims blog Brighter Than Before My journey of recovery from sexual abuse. (I’m not there yet)in which she details 12 months of allegedly repeated rapes of which she remembers very little, all allegedly by the same boyfriend that she continued to see. Alleged rapes that, despite gaining a restraining order against said boyfriend at the conclusion of the relationship, were not reported then – rather, she decided to wait 10 years to report and is now surprised that the police won’t investigate. Well, they would but apparently according to Roper only if the alleged rapist agrees to talk to them! Roper’s response is straight out of Dr Betty’s feminist therapy but more on that and “collective shout” later…

Share this:

This is an early call for manuscripts. AVFM Education, LLC is opening a publishing house in the near future. Zeta Press (under construction) will house a wide range of literature addressing issues faced by men and boys. It will include literature not acceptable for mainstream sensibilities, which means it is the stuff you want to read. It will also host an array of other interesting nonfiction and fiction offerings.

Simply put, we want to build the red pill library from hell.

We have agreed to contract with a highly experienced editing team and will provide cover art graphics for those who desire it.

Our contract with authors will be very competitive. We will provide you with extras like an editing progress account (RT) that allows you ongoing communication during the editing process and automated...

The statement “Violence is also the biggest cause of injury or death for women between 18 and 45.”

Has had wide circulation in Australia being cited by all and sundry. As explained it is lifted out of
context from a statement in a 2004 Vichealth report. There is a 2011 update to this report which
puts illness due to DV even more in context.

‘In Victoria, intimate partner violence contributes nine per cent to the total disease burden of women aged 15 to 44 years. This makes it the leading contributor to illness, disability and premature death for this group, outstripping other known risk factors including obesity, high cholesterol, high blood pressure and illicit drug use’

It might be the leading cause in the preventable illness group but overall it contributes only NINE PERCENT to the overall total something quite different.

Further information can be found in my article: A Voice for Men (Australia) site
Domestic-violence-woozles-factoids-in-Australia

In that article I suggest writing to the various Authorities mentioned as I did. Just maybe we can swat
this and other Woozles.

Graham Strouse

Maybe it’s the the rise in the were-dingo population.

Man Alive

Nice work in outing yet another academically lazy feminist man-hater.

PlainOldTruth

This fraudulent claim was most likely fabricated in the US: “No feminist piece on partner violence would be complete without the ludicrous claims that this “men’s violence against women” is accepted tolerated and even condoned by society.”

Most people fail to realize that propaganda claims that bolster present-day agendas are always, if they are to be effective in controlling policy discourses, based upon claims regarding the historical past. Unless we demonstrate the falsity of the concocted feminist narrative of the past, we will always be at a disadvantage in debates. The hoaxes will ALWAYS, when cornered, revert to falsehoods about the past. We cannot counter the “bad old days” hoax claims unless we do our homework and prepare to offer evidence of the facts that counter the mythological literary productions of “herstory.”

The victimhood ideology has almost complete control of academic social history, thus the prevalence, quantiity and ideological near-uniformity of skewed information is daunting. For the most part, social history is written, not as objective scholarship,. but as a deliberate foundation for present-day social policy. If one were attempt to become an academic who was uninterested in promoting ideological agendas, but do old-fashioned objective scholarship, there would be no change of tenure. Thus we see a monolith of biased, distorted scholarship that keeps out what fails to fit thew agenda.

SEE ►Society’s Acceptance of Domestic Violence? ► The great lie that preceding the rise of the domestic violence industry the crime of (genuine) domestic violence was ignored and/or found acceptable by the “patriarchy” is finally exposed as a hoax.

Pamela O’Shaughnessy’s unintentionally hilarious account of being ‘cyberstalked’
begins by melodramatically emitting a shudder at the very idea that “creepy men
[were] watching” as she shared her “vision of the future”. She practically gags at the suggestion that “sneaky systems programmers” – with beards, eek – may have run their grubby eyeballs all over her lovely “vision”.

Pass the smelling salts.

Ms O’Shaughnessy presents her “vision” that one day, a way can be found to “modify
male aggression and need for dominance” – that’s how radfems refer to what normal people call masculinity – as if she were a Miss Teen Iowa contestant breathlessly
expressing her dream of world peace. Only a mental health specialist can adequately explain how she managed to convince herself that she successfully glossed over the fact that she proposed solving the ‘man problem’ by having us all genetically modified. She calls it “a maladaptive evolutionary strategy” instead of ‘eugenics’ in the hope of sounding a little less like a deranged bigot with a Dr Mengel complex.

Had it not been for a “heavily-bearded failure[s] from Houston” – what has she got
against beards? – Ms O’Shaughnessy’s sinister musings may have gone unnoticed by anyone except the bilious gang of fellow eugenics enthusiasts at RadFemhub who drooled their unanimous support for her “vision”. Her claim of being bullied and harassed by MHRAs is somewhat undermined by the fact that in the three years since her “vision” was exposed on AVfM, Ms O’Shaughnessy has been completely left alone – unharmed, unscathed and yet to actually meet a MHRA face to bearded face.
As for the alleged email in which an alleged MHRA allegedly called her “an Irish slut” – where are those smelling salts? – we’ll just have to take her word for it in the same way we have to take Anita Sarkeesian’s word for it, and Danielle D’Entremont’s word for it…

Or not.

She rest of her account is a mish-mash of self-congratulation on surviving her ordeal and outsmarting the bearded creeps of AVfM, the usual references to the SPLC, Thomas Ball and Anders Breivik, and some rather desperate damselling: she claims that the Bearded Texan only targets “young protesters, mostly isolated, vulnerable
young women” – which must be the most curious description of Chanty Binx I’ve
ever heard. Most predictable of all, is her refusal to accept any kind of responsibility
for the dangerous and repellent nature of her “vision”.

She simply doesn’t comprehend why men, and the women who care about us, might have felt an obligation to reveal the identity of the obviously influential feminist who promoted such evil plans for our destinies. AVfM must never apologize or allow ourselves to be chastised for shining such an unforgiving spotlight on misandric bigots like Pamela O’Shaughnessy.
Exposing her demonstrated that AVfM believes that feminists have every right to express their freedom of speech, however offensive, but they do not have the right to escape scrutiny and condemnation – which was the only consequence that Ms O’Shaughnessy experienced from AVfM, and the only consequence that AVfM would ever advocate.
The fact that she has chosen to interpret this as cyberstalking only proves how thoroughly this woman has lost the plot – which is no small feat for a best-selling author of detective novels.

It is so good to have Dr Canning contributing his valuable insights here again. It’s only a matter of time before Caitlin Roper offers her tear-stained testimonial of being stalked, harassed and silenced by the bearded creeps at AVfM. I can hardly wait.

https://www.facebook.com/ Darryl Jewett

“…and yet to actually meet a MHRA face to bearded face.” lol

Jesse James

That’s ting about free speech feminists, it has two edges. One, for allowing people with great ideas and candor the ability to express themselves without being enslaved. And two, the side that allows wanton murderous idiots of the future like yourselves, to thoroughly out yourselves for the bigoted, nazi-esque fascists you all really are! (if you could ever convince us to allow you to “a maladaptive evolutionary strategy” all of us, poor things, why doesn’t anyone just give you the keys to power huh?)

Lord have mercy. There is a special place in hell for people like that. I almost feel bad in that she has to live with herself, to only have hell to look forward to.

Rob

i liked the link you gave to to adam blanch
where the comment

“a smokescreen by the feminist lobby. The evidence is clearly against it.
How else could we be having an ‘epidemic’ of domestic violence after 4
decades of these programs?”

that says it all 4 decades of their way and they are complaining the issues are stil there, so they then try to find other excuses!

Crash

The feminists in Western Australia seem to have a fair amount of influence in government policy if the domestic violence helpline service is any guide.

“The Women’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides support and counselling for women experiencing family and domestic violence. This includes phone counselling, information and advice, referral to local advocacy and support services, liaison with police if necessary and support in escaping situations of family and domestic violence. The service can refer women to safe accommodation if required.”

“The Men’s Domestic Violence Helpline is a state wide 24 hour service. This service provides counselling for men who are concerned about becoming violent or abusive. The service can provide telephone counselling, information and referral to ongoing face to face services if required. Information and support is also available for men who have experienced family and domestic violence.”

That last clumsily added sentence was only put in after protests by mens groups. The whole thing is shameless misandry all the way down.

PlainOldTruth

Speaking to the broadcast audience, “I have a sense of history — and you don’t.” — Hunter S. Thompson (video interview with Keith Richards, 1993)